Happy Face

I wouldn't wear them like. How about these http://www.triads.co.uk/designer-clothing/...ather-shoes.htm

Don't know if this is referring to them, but I think Pistonheads.com forumers have been the largest source of donations.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Why does an innocent man need the right to silence? To protect a loved one? To avoid embarrassment? To Keep an affair hidden? To keep their job? Could be loads of reasons.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights?

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? Just start driving responsibly, problem solved I don't drive. But then I don't stab people either, I still believe those accused of doing either of those things should have their civil liberties protected.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

Aye, because that's piss easy.

My eternal gratitude. This has bugged me for months. People always just tell me the non bold bit.

The Russian Roulette was class.

Have a fackin geez mate

I've thoroughly enjoyed 2006. Been to a few close friends' weddings, been on more holidays than the rest of my life combined, going to be an uncle for the first time, had a 15% pay hike, the flat's coming on canny and I'm going to see Public Enemy on Sunday. If only the toon were playing better life would be tip top.

PS3 dictates that Blueray will win.

Nowt that needed any effort, but I'm always being a twat in general. Example, first time I meet a mates lass, whatever she's called I'll say "you must be Helen". Usually causes trouble.

I like him aswell. Great T.V. personality and a great article. Ive always liked him. He's his own man that speaks his mind, nowt wrong with that. Except that his mind is filled with poo and Isembard Kingdom Brunel.

I second that. I subtract 1 from that.

Personally I think Clarkson is a cock knocker but if Top Gear gets pulled off the air it'll be daft.

erm. about 11.

I forgot. Do You Realize by the Flaming Lips reminds me of my Nannas death and lifts my spirits immeasurably.

Another one of those picture things, but better because it confirms your answers for you.... http://us.mms.com/us/dark/

What I know about Torquay: Some of the (shit) film Blackball was filmed there. But though the film was set in Torquay, most of it was filmed in the Isle Of Man. I can only presume it was the lesser of two evils.

Substitute The Real Hustle (bbc3) for Annually Retentive and I'm exactly the same! What kind of car have you got btw? I got rid of my Astra a couple of years ago. I enjoy having the commute time to myself and the exercise a good walk gives me.

This is the one I saved you all from seeing. It was funnier a decade or so ago when Senna and Mercury were the subjects and the answer was they both died with skid marks on their helmets.